Amitabh Thacoor1, Muholan Kanapathy2, Jana Torres-Grau2, Jagdeep Chana2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW32QG, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Amitabh.thacoor@doctors.org.uk. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW32QG, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is widely regarded as the Gold Standard in autologous breast reconstruction. Although drain-free abdominoplasty is performed in many centres, there is a paucity of evidence comparing outcomes when applied to DIEP breast reconstruction. METHOD: A retrospective review of patients who underwent DIEP breast reconstruction without abdominal drain insertion at Royal Free Hospital between Jan 2012-Nov 2016 was undertaken. Results were compared to previously published data from our centre on patients undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction with abdominal drains between Jan 2011-Jul 2012. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients underwent abdominal drain-free reconstruction (GroupA). Of 74 patients who previously underwent reconstruction with abdominal drains, 33 patients underwent drain removal by postoperative day (POD)3 regardless of output (GroupB) and 41 underwent drain removal after POD3 following instructions on drainage volume/24 h (GroupC). There was no significant difference in the length of stay between patients in Group A and B (3.6 vs. 3.9 days; p = 0.204). Length of stay in Group C was significantly higher than Group A and B (p = 0.001, p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in total (11.43% vs. 12.12% vs 17.07%, p = 0.780) or specific complications: Seroma: 2.86% vs. 0% vs. 4.88% (p = 0.774); Wound dehiscence: 8.57% vs. 9.09% vs. 4.88% (p = 0.728); Haematoma: 0% vs. 3.00% vs. 7.32% (p = 0.316) between Groups A, B and C, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that drain-free abdominal closure in DIEP reconstruction can be safely achieved without increased postoperative complications. These conclusions support existing evidence on the use of a drain-free approach in cosmetic abdominoplasty.
BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is widely regarded as the Gold Standard in autologous breast reconstruction. Although drain-free abdominoplasty is performed in many centres, there is a paucity of evidence comparing outcomes when applied to DIEP breast reconstruction. METHOD: A retrospective review of patients who underwent DIEP breast reconstruction without abdominal drain insertion at Royal Free Hospital between Jan 2012-Nov 2016 was undertaken. Results were compared to previously published data from our centre on patients undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction with abdominal drains between Jan 2011-Jul 2012. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients underwent abdominal drain-free reconstruction (GroupA). Of 74 patients who previously underwent reconstruction with abdominal drains, 33 patients underwent drain removal by postoperative day (POD)3 regardless of output (GroupB) and 41 underwent drain removal after POD3 following instructions on drainage volume/24 h (GroupC). There was no significant difference in the length of stay between patients in Group A and B (3.6 vs. 3.9 days; p = 0.204). Length of stay in Group C was significantly higher than Group A and B (p = 0.001, p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in total (11.43% vs. 12.12% vs 17.07%, p = 0.780) or specific complications: Seroma: 2.86% vs. 0% vs. 4.88% (p = 0.774); Wound dehiscence: 8.57% vs. 9.09% vs. 4.88% (p = 0.728); Haematoma: 0% vs. 3.00% vs. 7.32% (p = 0.316) between Groups A, B and C, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that drain-free abdominal closure in DIEP reconstruction can be safely achieved without increased postoperative complications. These conclusions support existing evidence on the use of a drain-free approach in cosmetic abdominoplasty.